jj4211 @ jj4211 @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

1,731

Joined

2 yr. ago

Sea steading, BioShock here we come...

But seriously the fact that anyone ever mentions Mars colonization as a realistic strategy to do better than earth shows how stupid they are. Imagine the least habitable biome on earth where no one wants to live, imagine it even worse by unchecked climate change and realize it's still just ashtoningly easier to live there than the most optimistic expectations of Mars.

He's always been team Elon, and team Elon also likes to be contrarian and 'edgy', so that aligned with being pro Trump. He also wants to ditch government spending and regulation, which aligns to a claimed GOP principle (though they love spending so it's a lie). So now he's faced with the reality that everyone else already knew, the Republicans spend like crazy, even less responsibly than Democrats.

He basically wants a party to represent the perspective of 'screw poor people' as it's one and only tenant.

While it is true he has been crappy and not really that smart pretty much from the onset, the world would have been happy to continue perpetuating the myth of Musk as the real world Tony Stark.

People wanted that narrative, certain people profited immensely off the myth, and there wasn't much practical downside apart from it being really unjustified for these folks to get so rich, but we accept that downside constantly.

It passed the house but not quite yet the Senate and it looks like it will have to go back to the house because the Senate has changed it.

Oldest hard drives I've dealt with were 4RU. Those systems also had me attaching reels of tape with write enable rings.

Yes, as common as that is, in the scheme of driving it is relatively anomolous.

By hours in car, most of the time is spent on a freeway driving between two lines either at cruising speed or in a traffic jam. The most mind numbing things for a human, pretty comfortably in the wheel house of driving.

Once you are dealing with pedestrians, signs, intersections, etc, all those despite 'common' are anomolous enough to be dramatically more tricky for these systems.

I think this is a discussion about what the hypothetical 'legal' way for this to go down would be. It's not really an assertion that it would actually work, but just a description of what the process would be.

This has deviated from "would such a move be justified?" to "how could such a move be legally pursued?". It may still end in the same place, but we can't pretend the courts would treat the "just stop paying without a judgement" as "legal". Might proceed in an illegal fashion as the only reasonable way through though.

It's not saying the states are acting capriciously or even unreasonably, it's just that the system would treat it as such

The system would declare the proper remediation is the states suing for their funds and having the justice system fix it. If the justice system so orders the dispersement and federal gov refuses to pay out, then I could imagine the settlement terms permitting the state to deduct owed funds from their payments. If the justice system fails to rule appropriately, then the state doesn't have legal recourse, but it may still make sense to take their recourse anyway.

In practice, the office is afforded quite a bit of unilateral power. Yes, other parts of the government can counteract, but at least in practice by default the executive branch can do quite a bit.

At least in my car, the lane following (not keeping system) is handy because the steering wheel naturally tends to go where it should and less often am I "fighting" the tendency to center. The keeping system is at least for me largely nothing. If I turn signal, it ignores me crossing a lane. If circumstances demand an evasive maneuver that crosses a line, it's resistance isn't enough to cause an issue. At least mine has fared surprisingly well in areas where the lane markings are all kind of jacked up due to temporary changes for construction. If it is off, then my arms are just having to generally assert more effort to be in the same place I was going to be with the system. Generally no passenger notices when the system engages/disengages in the car except for the chiming it does when it switches over to unaided operation.

So at least my experience has been a positive one, but it hits things just right with intervention versus human attention, including monitoring gaze to make sure I am looking where I should. However there are people who test "how long can I keep my hands off the steering wheel", which is a more dangerous mode of thinking.

And yes, having cameras everywhere makes fine maneuvering so much nicer, even with the limited visualization possible in the synthesized 'overhead' view of your car.

To the extent it is people trying to fool people, it's rich people looking to fool poorer people for the most part.

To the extent it's actually useful, it's to replace certain systems.

Think of the humble phone tree, designed to make it so humans aren't having to respond, triage, and route calls. So you can have an AI system that can significantly shorten that role, instead of navigating a tedious long maze of options, a couple of sentences back and forth and you either get the portion of automated information that would suffice or routed to a human to take care of it. Same analogy for a lot of online interactions where you have to input way too much and if automated data, you get a wall of text of which you'd like something to distill the relevant 3 or 4 sentences according to your query.

So there are useful interactions.

However it's also true that it's dangerous because the "make user approve of the interaction" can bring out the worst in people when they feel like something is just always agreeing with them. Social media has been bad enough, but chatbots that by design want to please the enduser and look almost legitimate really can inflame the worst in our minds.

The thing about self driving is that it has been like 90-95% of the way there for a long time now. It made dramatic progress then plateaued, as approaches have failed to close the gap, with exponentially more and more input thrown at it for less and less incremental subjective improvement.

But your point is accurate, that humans have lapses and AI have lapses. The nature of those lapses is largely disjoint, so that makes an opportunity for AI systems to augment a human driver to get the best of both worlds. A constantly consistently vigilant computer driving monitoring and tending the steering, acceleration, and braking to be the 'right' thing in a neutral behavior, with the human looking for more anomolous situations that the AI tends to get confounded about, and making the calls on navigating certain intersections that the AI FSD still can't figure out. At least for me the worst part of driving is the long haul monotony on freeway where nothing happens, and AI excels at not caring about how monotonous it is and just handling it, so I can pay a bit more attention to what other things on the freeway are doing that might cause me problems.

I don't have a Tesla, but have a competitor system and have found it useful, though not trustworthy. It's enough to greatly reduce the drain of driving, but I have to be always looking around, and have to assert control if there's a traffic jam coming up (it might stop in time, but it certainly doesn't slow down soon enough) or if I have to do a lane change in some traffic (if traffic conditions are light, it can change langes nicely, but without a whole lot of breathing room, it won't do it, which is nice when I can afford to be stupidly cautious).

I think the self driving is likely to be safer in the most boring scenarios, the sort of situations where a human driver can get complacent because things have been going so well for the past hour of freeway driving. The self driving is kind of dumb, but it's at least consistently paying attention, and literally has eyes in the back of it's head.

However, there's so much data about how it fails in stupidly obvious ways that it shouldn't, so you still need the human attention to cover the more anomalous scenarios that foul self driving.

Now there’s models that reason,

Well, no, that's mostly a marketing term applied to expending more tokens on generating intermediate text. It's basically writing a fanfic of what thinking on a problem would look like. If you look at the "reasoning" steps, you'll see artifacts where it just goes disjoint in the generated output that is structurally sound, but is not logically connected to the bits around it.

The probabilities of our sentence structure are a consequence of our speech, we aren't just trying to statistically match appropriate sounding words.

With enough use of LLM, you will see how it is obviously not doing anything like conceptualizing the tokens it's working with or "reasoning" even when it is marketed as "reasoning".

Sticking to textual content generation by LLM, you'll see that what is emitted is first and foremost structurally appropriate, but beyond that it's mostly "bonus" for it to be narratively consistent and an extra bonus if it also manages to be factually consistent. An example I saw from Gemini recently had it emit what sounded like an explanation of which action to pick, and then the sentence describing actually picking the action was exactly opposite of the explanation. Both of those were structurally sound and reasonable language, but there's no logical connection between the two portions of the emitted output in that case.

He's got the 'real' election ahead of him, and given that it's likely there are two independents in the race, hard to say what that will be.

That said, being too cynical and just ignoring what he says as lying right off the bat isn't going to do anyone any favors. Reward the mindset, punish betrayal if it happens. A healthy skepticism is good, but not a completely defeatist outlook.

So I've seen a fair number of people claim that Trump outperforming downballot is a sign of some cheating.

Question I have in response is why would the GOP bother to only cheat in the presidential election? Seems like if they were going to go all in on cheating, they'd rig it more soundly in their favor. Maybe they would have let Robinson take a dive because of his particular circumstances, but they would have assured themselves at least a supermajority in the state legislature to compensate.

It seems a simpler explanation is that people didn't vote Republican, they voted "Trump". Or also plausible that some of them didn't vote "Trump" so much as they voted "not the woman of color with a foreign sounding name".

With the caveat that we can accommodate everyone so long as sufficient people put in their fair share of effort. In an ideal world that will mean very short working hours and/or nicely early retirement/late entry into the work force.

Certainly the usual talking heads are spoiled rich guys that have never known labor and have not done their fair share, but it is a difficult thing to balance to make sure we do take care of each other but make sure enough people are engaged to successfully do that

While it has been on the fence, it broke pretty hard for Trump even as Democrats won the governor, lt governor, and AG...

They might not be fully onboard with generic Republican but they are all in on MAGA... A Trump would probably give them a strong win.

The fact they took a copout path to not speak to the important part is a worrisome sign. If the matter were actually before them, they may rule it as unconstitutional, but they seem to be inclined to have the matter never be technically before them.

A district ruling against the order? Let it stand without taking up the case and potentially setting it nationwide. The people have no standing to appeal because they won their case.

Oh look, a jusge in Texas ruled in favor of the order, all of a sudden the government is shuffling immigrants around and deporting all birthright citizens from that jurisdiction.